Mike Gurstein forwarded two newspaper articles to futurework, "Flexible Working Cuts Costs and Creates Jobs: Wrong on Both Counts" by Simon Caulkin and "Don't Expect Socialism for Investors to Go On Forever" by Kevin Phillips Taken together, the articles mark a watershed for the issues that concern this list. The *critique* of so-called neo-liberal policies is becoming mainstream. It consists of two parts: 1. when powerful economic agents talk about the "discipline of the market place", they don't mean it to apply to themselves and 2. markets are only efficient and effective when they operate within the context of such extra-market qualities as trust and fairness. Phillips wrote, >One of the most encouraging Washington developments of the last month is >the number of cynical conservatives, liberals and middle-of-the-roaders who >are starting to describe this as just what it is: state capitalism, >financial mercantilism, socialism or maybe collectivism. Take your choice. Caulkin wrote, >And inevitably, just as politicians have reached a consensus on the >desirability of flexible working, that consensus is being challenged. >According to research by academics at Birkbeck College*, some aspects of >workforce flexibility are actually counter-productive. While the critique of the neo-liberal policies is clear. The prescriptions for change are still muddy. Phillips advocates a transaction tax -- presumably to finance the ongoing spectacle of bailouts. Caulkin suggests a return to the industrial paternalism of Henry Ford. It's hard to see how either proposal -- or even both combined -- addresses the technological and social changes of the recent past or the challenges of the next century. With regard to finance, the issue is not simply how to pay for bailouts. It is a matter of avoiding the mismanagement and misallocation of resources that makes bailouts necessary. With regard to work, the issue is not simply one of maintaining a contented and well-fed workforce. It is a matter of establishing the autonomy of the workers and the integrity of work. A tall order. What if the solution to these problems was a profoundly simple one? What if it was as simple as the proverbial "stop beating our heads against the wall"? Could such a proposal even get a hearing? Could such a proposal initiate and sustain an expanding conversation? Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Know Ware Communications Vancouver, B.C., CANADA [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 688-8296 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
